Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 18:42:40 PDT
From:
[email protected](Jim Warren)
Subject: File 4--re California drug forfeiture increases
>From autodesk!hibbert%xanadu.com Sun Apr 19 18:35:39 1992
>To:
[email protected],
[email protected]
>Subject: hearing on forfeiture laws in CA Senate Judiciary Committee
The California Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on
Tuesday on proposed legislation to strengthen the state's drug asset
forfeiture law. I hope the civil liberties connection in this issue
is clear. The computer connection (why I think it's reasonable to
talk about this on a CPSR list) is that similar laws have been used to
justify the seizure of the assets of accused computer crackers. There
is so little control of the use of these laws, and it's proven so hard
to get property back in every particular case in which they were used,
that I believe the laws should be fought every time they come up.
According to yesterday's (Saturday, April 18) San Jose Mercury News,
Senate Minority Leader Ken Maddy, (R) Fresno, introduced a bill that
would repeal the 1994 expiration date of California's drug asset
forfeiture law. State Attorney General Dan Lungren was quoted as
urging the legislature to pass the bill.
Forfeiture laws are an affront to our constitutional guarantees
against being deprived of our property without due process of law.
The forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agents to confiscate any
property of an accused person and use it until and unless the accused
can *prove* that it wasn't purchased with illegally obtained money.
Does it make sense for CPSR to speak out against forfeiture laws in
general? I think it's possible to take a position against this bill
by saying that forfeiture laws are bad in general, without talking
about drug laws or the drug war. Is that enough to allow us to take a
position on this bill, considering the arguments that came up when we
were talking about Les' proposed Employer code of ethics?
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
